Disposed¶27

Smti Sumpi Taying v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Nov 2025WP(C)/538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: PRT termination Arunachal Pradesh; Directorate of Elementary Education; verification of nature of appointment; parity with similarly situated petitioners; speaking orders; remand for reconsideration; Commissioner (Education) respondent No. 1; WP(C)/538/2025; WP(C)/638/2023; disposed of without merits; Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; Susmita Phukan Khaund; 17-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to reconsider the petitioner's case, verify the nature of her appointment, pass speaking orders as per law, and consider parity with similarly situated persons; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶27

Smti Sumpi Taying Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040018802025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/538/2025

¶5

Smti Sumpi Taying Daughter of Shri takin Taying, resident of Rayang Village, PO and SP Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner (Education), govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Under Secretary (Education - II) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar.

¶8

3:The Under Secretary (Education) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 4:The Director of Elementary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Deputy Director of School Education Age: 0 Occupation : Anjaw District

Page No.# 2/3

Anjaw

Arunachal Pradesh

Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Liya Keche,Kamin Teri,Tony Meto,Yasmin Gao,Mepe Ete,Nyali Sora

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum,

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 17-11-2025

¶17

Learned counsel Mr. M. Kato is present for the petitioner Smti Sumpi Taying.

¶18

Learned counsel Mr. A. Podo is present on behalf of learned Standing Counsel Mr. T. Tagum for the Education Department, representing respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court against the termination order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, represented by respondent No. 1.

¶20

It is submitted that without going into the merits of this case, the matter can be remanded back to the respondent authorities for verification and reconsideration of the case of the petitioner as it is stated to have done in the case of similarly situated persons.

¶21

The petitioner was working as PRT under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is contended that vide order No EED-12015/5/2023 dated 16.11.2023 issued by the respondent No. 1 on 23.11.2023, the petitioner was terminated from

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

service.

¶24

It is submitted that vide another impugned order, similarly situated writ petitioners were also terminated from service and this Court in WP(C)/638/2023 has directed the respondent No. 1 being the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department to take up for consideration the case of the similarly situated writ petitioners of WP(C)/638/2023 and conduct necessary verification regarding the nature of their appointments and based on the outcome of such a process, pass necessary speaking orders and also consider the aspect of parity with similarly situated persons.

¶25

I have considered the submissions at the bar.

¶26

Considering the limited prayer, the respondent No. 1 is directed to take up for consideration the case of the petitioner and conduct necessary verification regarding the nature of her appointment and based on the outcome of such a process, pass necessary speaking orders as per law and also consider the aspect of parity with similarly situated persons.

¶27

In terms of the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Smti Sumpi Taying v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Sumpi Taying v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debojit Debnath Alias Debajit Debnath Alias Babai Vs the Union of India

Kodom Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ananta Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Er Kipa Gagung Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Smti Mina Toko Vs The State Election Commission and 3 Ors.

Tao Kumar Vs The State Election Commission and 3 Ors.